I’m not sure those accusations reflect what I’ve said, where I note peer review does have problems and on occasion have suggested non-standard ideas might be worth exploring. But more important, are you going to address the central question: how you think poor ideas should be weeded out, or if you think science is better served by everyone spending all their debunking whatever fringe notions are proposed instead of building on what seems probable, right down to time cubes?
Because thread after thread you’ve offered reports with all but no evidence as if they were facts, and rejected ideas with lots of evidence - even quoted ‘problems’ with standard theory that are straight-up fiction - and so it seems your real idea is that science simply shouldn’t have any standards. That’s not what an open mind means, and whatever problems there in peer review, that’s not an improvement.
